McCarter v. UT-Battelle LLC

1

RANDALL JASON MCCARTER, Plaintiff, v. UT-BATTELLE, LLC, Defendant.

No. 3:20-CV-483-DCP

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville

August 24, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Debra C. Poplin United States Magistrate Judge

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings including entry of judgment [Doc. 12].

Now before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 18] and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 20]. The motions are ripe and ready for adjudication. Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion [Doc. 18] and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion [Doc. 20]. Specifically, the Court enters summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim and retaliation claim. The Court declines to enter summary judgment on a disparate treatment claim as Plaintiff has not alleged such a claim.

I. BACKGROUND

This suit arises out allegations of religious discrimination for failure to accommodate and for retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). The following facts are undisputed, unless noted otherwise.

Plaintiff has worked as a security police officer (“SPO”) for several private employers who were under contract with the Department of Energy (“DOE”) since 2008. On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff became a protective force officer (“PFO”) with Defendant at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (“ORNL”) after his previous employer lost the security contract.^[1] Plaintiff's job duties include protecting special nuclear material with the duty to engage in pursuit and to use deadly force [Doc. 21-1 p. 79]. He also has authority to make a citizen's arrest for theft of DOE property [Id.].^[2] DOE owns the uniforms and tactical equipment worn by the PFOs [Id. at 3]. Stephen Macklin (“Macklin”), the Protective Force Group Leader at ORNL during the relevant time period testified that Defendant continued the policies of the previous security contractor, including the appearance policy [Id. at 141]. Macklin claims, however, that he received complaints regarding certain patches worn by the PFOs [Id.]. Macklin stated that the complaints were not directed at any religious patches, but instead directed at “morale patches” and specifically, a patch that said, “Armed Infidel.” [Id. at 4 & 141]. Macklin stated that he continued to receive complaints about offensive patches, so he had to take action to eliminate patches that could be considered offensive [Id. at 141]. Jeff Smith, the Deputy Laboratory Director for Operations, reported to Jimmy Stone (“Stone”), the Associate Laboratory Director, Facilities & Operations Directorate at ORNL, that there had been complaints about the patches and that some of the complaints concerned the display of the Christian flag [Id. at 4].

On June 6, 2019, Defendant distributed a Memorandum (“June 6 Memorandum”) to all protective force department personnel [Id. at 152]. The purpose of the June 6 Memorandum was “to provide information to the department on upcoming operational changes and clarifications on already established policies” [Id.]. The June 6 Memorandum stated, in relevant part, as follows:

1. Effective June 17, 2019[,] the only patch which is authorized on the Tactical Vest will be DOE marked on the back, a black/silver Protective Force Shield on the back and front and the Supervisors Rank insignia. No other patches, flags, pins, or insignias are authorized.

(hereinafter, the “Policy”) [Id.].

Prior to the PFOs proceeding to their assigned post, they attend a guard mount meeting, which is a daily briefing [Id. at 83]. Plaintiff took a vacation on June 8, 2019, so he first learned of the Policy during the guard mount meeting on June 20, 2019 [Id. at 95-96]. Captain Gary Johnson (“Captain Johnson”) explained the Policy to the PFOs, stating that they were no longer authorized to wear anything that is not company issued on the vests or uniforms [Doc. 19-4 p. 3]. Captain Johnson specifically mentioned patches with religious symbols and American flags, and “any items that's not company issue[d]” [Id.]. Captain Johnson looked around the room to see if any of the PFOs were wearing patches, because in the past many of them wore the American flag [Id. at 4]. Captain Johnson testified that he did not see anyone wearing any patches, except Plaintiff, who was wearing the Christian cross [Id.]. Captain Johnson told Plaintiff that he could no longer wear his patch and that he needed to take it off [Id.]. In response, Plaintiff requested a religious accommodation and began asking questions about the rules and regulations with respect to his patch [Id. at 5]. Captain Johnson testified that he is not an expert about those issues, so he told Plaintiff that as a captain he is required to enforce company rules and regulations [Id. at 6]. Captain Johnson told Plaintiff to take off the patch and that if Plaintiff had any issues or complaints, he could file a grievance with the union or make an official complaint so that they could address it later [Id.]. Plaintiff asked Captain Johnson if he was planning to send Plaintiff home, and Captain Johnson responded that he was not going to send Plaintiff home at the time [Id.].

Plaintiff testified that during the June 20 guard mount meeting, he asked Captain Johnson if the new policy required that Christian cross patches be removed, and Captain Johnson responded in the affirmative [Doc. 21-1 p. 88]. Plaintiff requested a religious accommodation, and Captain Johnson did not appear to understand Plaintiff's request [Id.]. Plaintiff does not recall Captain Johnson telling him to file a grievance [Id.].

After the guard mount meeting, Plaintiff proceeded to his post [Id. at 89]. Meanwhile, Captain Johnson talked to Major Roxanne Pilgrim (“Major Pilgrim”) about the situation [Doc. 271 p. 5]. Major Pilgrim told Captain Johnson that Plaintiff needed to remove his patch [Id.]. Major Pilgrim called Lieutenant Geraldo Blair (“Lieutenant Blair”) and instructed him to have Plaintiff surrender his patch [Id. at 4]. Within a few minutes of Plaintiff arriving at his post, Lieutenant Blair told Plaintiff that Major Pilgrim instructed him to direct Plaintiff to remove the patch [Id. at 90]. Plaintiff would not remove the patch and told Lieutenant Blair that if Major Pilgrim wanted Plaintiff to give up the patch, she needed to ask Plaintiff herself and not send someone else to instruct him to do so [Doc. 21-1 p. 91]. Plaintiff testified that he was simply seeking clarification from the person in charge, which was Major Pilgrim [Id.]. Plaintiff attempted to call Major Pilgrim but could not reach her [Id. at 94]. Plaintiff called Captain Johnson, who stated that Major Pilgrim was with him, and he confirmed that Major Pilgrim had given the order to remove the patch [Id.]. Plaintiff told Captain Johnson that if Major Pilgrim wanted to take his patch, she could do so and that she could also send him home [Id.].

According to Macklin's testimony, after the above incident, Major Pilgrim called him [Id. at 145]. Major Pilgrim reported to Macklin that Plaintiff refused to remove his patch and demanded to talk to her [Id.]. Macklin told Major Pilgrim that there appeared to be a lot of emotion and stress as a result of what occurred and that they all just needed to diffuse the situation as it was not a life-and-death matter that they needed to worry about [Id.]. Macklin told Major Pilgrim that Plaintiff could wear his patch on his vest and that they could sort it out the following day [Id.]. Macklin stated that Plaintiff also called him, and Plaintiff explained that under Title VII, he had a right to a religious accommodation [Id. at 145-56].^[3] Macklin told Plaintiff that he was not familiar with any of that [Id.]. Macklin explained to Plaintiff that he had received complaints and that they needed to make sure that they were expressing a neutral image [Id.].

Per Plaintiff's testimony, he advised Macklin of the situation [Id. at 94]. Macklin told Plaintiff that he would issue a “stand down” and that Plaintiff could keep the patch on so that Macklin could research the law and discuss with legal counsel [Id. at 95]. Plaintiff kept the patch on through his shift [Id.].

The following day, Stone told Sam Meacom (“Meacom”), the Chief Steward for the Guards Union, that Plaintiff needed to remove his patch before working the next shift [Id. at 5]. According to Plaintiff, Meacom called him to report that Stone stated that Plaintiff better not have the patch on [Id. at 95]. Plaintiff testified that it was said in a threatening manner [Id.], but Stone and Meacom deny making any threatening comments [Id. at 5, 47]. Plaintiff stated he removed the patch to keep things cordial [Id. at 95].

Defendant has four levels of discipline: oral reminder, written warning, suspension, and termination [Doc. 19-7 p. 15]. Defendant does not have a progressive disciplinary policy and that depending on the circumstances, any one of the discipline levels could be an appropriate action [Id.]. Plaintiff testified that, sometime in late June 2019, he attended a “disciplinary/termination” hearing with Meacom, Macklin, Bill Manuel, who is the Laboratory Protection Division Director, Les Morgan, the Labor Relations Manager, and several unknown females who Plaintiff assumes were with the human resources department [Doc. 21-1 p. 106]. During the meeting, no one told Plaintiff that he would be terminated [Id.]. Plaintiff does not recall what was specifically discussed at the meeting, other than they provided a list of...